2003 (7) TMI 627 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over inclusion of Modvat credit in assessable value of final product; Jurisdiction of Commissioner to ignore settled Tribunal orders; Impugned order challenged on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:

1. Dispute over Modvat Credit Inclusion:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing railway sleepers, faced a dispute regarding the inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value of their final product. The Commissioner's order held the Modvat credit availed by the appellants on inputs should be included in the final product's assessable value. However, the Tribunal noted that this issue had been previously settled in favor of the appellants by earlier Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal's final disposal without pre-deposit of duty and penalty, as agreed by both parties.

2. Jurisdiction to Ignore Settled Orders:
The appellant's advocate highlighted that previous show cause notices on the same contract had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Despite this, the Commissioner in the present case chose to ignore settled precedents and upheld the inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value. The advocate contended that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Tribunal's previous orders, which had not been challenged further. The Tribunal agreed that the Commissioner lacked justification for disregarding settled law and upheld the appellant's position based on previous decisions.

3. Grounds of Limitation:
The appellant also challenged the impugned order on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the Commissioner's decision was beyond the one-year period and lacked justification for invoking a longer limitation period. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's stance, noting that the Revenue had previously issued show cause notices on the same contract, indicating that the facts were known. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order both on merit and limitation grounds, emphasizing that the inclusion of Modvat credit and the extended limitation period were unjustified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the Modvat credit should not be included in the assessable value of the final product. The Commissioner's decision was overturned due to the lack of evidence supporting the inclusion and the unjustified extension of the limitation period. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to settled legal principles and respecting previous Tribunal decisions in similar matters.